Bradly Beal, 50 mil to score 9 points in 31 mins in an elim game (Kblaze get in here

[QUOTE=tontoz;14905868]Your memory sucks. I linked the 36 page thread about his signing. I only once mentioned his trade value, and I just said a $50 million contract with a no trade clause would be harder to trade than a $35 million deal which is closey to his true value.

My primary objection to paying him is that we already know what to expect. The wizards have no path to being good with Beal on the roster. It just means they will stay on the treadmill to nowhere. Portland east is what I called them.

Not only did we spend another year in irrelevance with 35 wins. We missed out on some excellent draft prospects last year. Starting our tank in a lousy draft year is right out of the #sowizards playbook.

3 things had to happen for Beal to get traded.
-the GM got fired
-we needed another team dumb enough to trade for him.
-beal had to approve the trade.

Even after the trade all we got was expiring and pick swaps and that was the best case scenario. The worst case scenario was spending another 5 more years on the treadmill to nowhere.

There was minimal upside to resigning Beal and major downside. That is not a bet I would ever make.

You aren't a wizards fan so you can't grasp the fact that fans aren't interested in spending another 5 years on the same treadmill we've been on for decades.[/QUOTE]

I read it and that is what you said. It was dumb to sign him and the contract would be difficult to move at his number.

Didn’t hurt them, actually got them assets they wouldn’t have gotten without signing him, and contract was moved easily.

All your other points, many I agree with, have no relevance our discussion about Beal.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;14905873]If you are gonna shift goal posts and try to say you only said

“the contract is able to be moved” and that’s it….

fine, you win, congratulations, send a thank you to Mat Ishbia for being a special kind of stupid. you can leave the thread now




My point remains the same

Beal contract is terrible value for his performance and health. The No trade clause makes it even more insane.

He’s going to be detrimental to any team trying to win because he simply does not pull the weight of his salary. He’s a burden.

Suns are now big time ****ed

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/hjk3q7JB/IMG-3387.jpg[/IMG]

It’s the worst contract in the league.


Just saw this too lol[/QUOTE]

Glad you finally admit you were wrong.

[QUOTE=Charlie Sheen;14905885]Yup. Agree with everything you said.

Looking at it from the other side it feels like Phoenix got caught up in the moment after last year's playoffs. It was like Suns decision makers forgot the massive investment they made in KD because all they could see was Booker's historic playoff run...



Monty was the problem. Old CP3 was the problem. Ayton was the problem. Bench missing shots was the problem. Nah. the problem always was Phoenix has unrealistic expectation for Booker. He does not offer enough when he is not scoring. It is unfair to compare him to Steph but that is the role the Suns tried to put him in... Curry drew the defense away from the areas KD likes to operate and Booker just is not that caliber of player.[/QUOTE]

i completely agree what you said. Suns also expected booker to be a lead playmaker this year. He was ok at it but not good enough to lead a team like the best stars. One reason suns got hot at end of year is they had beal play more pg.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14905890]I read it and that is what you said. It was dumb to sign him and the contract would be difficult to move at his number.

Didn’t hurt them, actually got them assets they wouldn’t have gotten without signing him, and contract was moved easily.

All your other points, many I agree with, have no relevance our discussion about Beal.[/QUOTE]


Contract was moved easily? That is just dumb. It took 3 unlikely events to occur simultaneously.

You are like the guy who goes all in preflop with qq and thinks he made a good play when he outdraws aa.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14905894]Contract was moved easily? That is just dumb. It took 3 unlikely events to occur simultaneously.

You are like the guy who goes all in preflop with qq and thinks he made a good play when he outdraws aa.[/QUOTE]

its not a bad play to go all in preflop with QQ tbf, JJ sure.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14905898]its not a bad play to go all in preflop with QQ tbf, JJ sure.[/QUOTE]


It is when the other guy is telling you he has aa and you don't buy it.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14905894]Contract was moved easily? That is just dumb. It took 3 unlikely events to occur simultaneously.

You are like the guy who goes all in preflop with qq and thinks he made a good play when he outdraws aa.[/QUOTE]

Lol.

ESPN’s Front Office Insider Bobby Marks

‘That alone is prohibitive from a team-building standpoint for the Phoenix Suns, but Beal also has a no-trade clause alongside the three years left on his deal. And that should have given the Suns pause before they traded for him last summer, according to ESPN's Bobby Marks.
"[Beal's no-trade clause] should have been a dealbreaker if you're Phoenix," he said Monday (2:00 mark). "That should have been a walkaway. Now you are married, again, to that no-trade clause and probably the most toxic contract in NBA history.’


Or maybe DMavs41 knows better
lol

[QUOTE=tontoz;14905899]It is when the other guy is telling you he has aa and you don't buy it.[/QUOTE]

that's fair

[QUOTE]Bobby Marks is the NBA Front Office Insider for ESPN, previously performing this position for Yahoo! Sports' The Vertical. [B]He had previously spent 20 years working in the NBA, the last five as assistant general manager of the Brooklyn Nets.[/B][/QUOTE]

Bobby Marks was working in the NBA front office for years, actually making these decisions, and called Beals probably the worst in NBA history. That is saying something for a guy involved in the NBA so long.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14905904]Bobby Marks was working in the NBA front office for years, actually making these decisions, and called Beals contract the worst in NBA history. That is saying something for a guy involved in the NBA so long.[/QUOTE]

Yup. 100%

[QUOTE=tontoz;14905894]Contract was moved easily? That is just dumb. It took 3 unlikely events to occur simultaneously.

You are like the guy who goes all in preflop with qq and thinks he made a good play when he outdraws aa.[/QUOTE]

Complete revisionist history. Multiple teams were interested and he was traded within a few weeks of becoming available. Nothing about it was unlikely, which was my point and Blaze's point the entire time.

Terrible poker analogy. Nothing is that simple. It depends on what the chip stacks are and the risk / reward specifics of the decision. The problem with people like you is that you can't understand nuance or the specifics of a situation. Plenty of situations where going all in pre with QQ makes sense...and plenty of situations where it doesn't.

Beal was never going to be hard to move, even with the no-trade clause, unless he suffered a serious injury...and even then he likely could have been moved.

But yea...keep telling me how unlikely it was when reality begs to differ. Funny how that works.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14905990]Complete revisionist history. Multiple teams were interested and he was traded within a few weeks of becoming available. Nothing about it was unlikely, which was my point and Blaze's point the entire time.

Terrible poker analogy. Nothing is that simple. It depends on what the chip stacks are and the risk / reward specifics of the decision. The problem with people like you is that you can't understand nuance or the specifics of a situation. Plenty of situations where going all in pre with QQ makes sense...and plenty of situations where it doesn't.

Beal was never going to be hard to move, even with the no-trade clause, unless he suffered a serious injury...and even then he likely could have been moved.

But yea...keep telling me how unlikely it was when reality begs to differ. Funny how that works.[/QUOTE]



Who exactly were these "other teams" that were interested in Beal that Beal was willing to go to? Please enlighten us.

I am sure it would be news to Bobby Marks, and the Suns.
[QUOTE]
"[Beal's no-trade clause] should have been a dealbreaker if you're Phoenix," he said Monday (2:00 mark). "That should have been a walkaway. Now you are married, again, to that no-trade clause and probably the most toxic contract in NBA history.’[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=tontoz;14905992]Who exactly were these "other teams" that were interested in Beal that Beal was willing to go to? Please enlighten us.

I am sure it would be news to Bobby Marks, and the Suns.[/QUOTE]

i remember it being mainly miami but they balked at price and went after lillard. They didnt think herro was 30mil worse than beal and they were completely right. There were a few rumors with sacramento but that dont think that was serious and deal was going be huerter/barnes and filler. Finally, think beal said mil had interest if they didnt get lillard. Guess it wouldve involved middleton, mil needs assets to trade jrue for beal like 3 1sts. Jrue got 2 1sts with brogdon and timelord both guys had slightly positive value

so, raise the salary cap to 650 mil a year and all the troubles are solved, right.

money can buy sorrow. promised.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14905992]Who exactly were these "other teams" that were interested in Beal that Beal was willing to go to? Please enlighten us.

I am sure it would be news to Bobby Marks, and the Suns.[/QUOTE]

Widely reported that both Miami and Milwaukee were interested and trying to make it work.

Beal himself said he got word that the Knicks, Nets, and Kings were trying to make moves to make it happen as well. Like I said at the time, I highly suspected that the Nets would have traded Simmons and some future assets for him Beal. That was probably the deal the Wizards should have gone for. Simmons is a much worse asset than Beal and I bet the Wizards could have gotten more of the type of package you would have wanted. What the Wizards ultimately went for doesn't mean that it was the only option.

Again, he got moved within days / weeks of coming available and the Wizards got positive value for the contract.

To argue otherwise is to simply argue against reality.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907220]Widely reported that both Miami and Milwaukee were interested and trying to make it work.

Beal himself said he got word that the Knicks, Nets, and Kings were trying to make moves to make it happen as well.

Again, he got moved within days / weeks of coming available and the Wizards got positive value for the contract.

To argue otherwise is to simply argue against reality.[/QUOTE]



If there were so many teams interested then why did the Suns get him "basically for free"? Those are your own words.

Why couldn't the wizards get more for him like other teams did when trading their players?

I guess no contrast is untradeable but there’s a certain point where it looks like such a negative asset you have to attach a 1st to get rid of it. Beal got positive value from suns but at same time lotta people thought phx made a stupid overpay. I was in between thought it was overpay but ok with it since they needed an upgrade from Paul and no other “star” was attainable.

For now those people down on Beal trade were right imo. He looks untradeable rn and phx big 3 doesn’t work. That can change with a bounce back year but hard imagining Beal plays as well as someone like gobert on this suns team.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907222]If there were so many teams interested then why did the Suns get him "basically for free"? Those are your own words.

Why couldn't the wizards get more for him like other teams did when trading their players?[/QUOTE]

My exact quote was basically for free or at little cost...and I explained previously what I meant. Which was that a win now team like the Suns doesn't care about giving up some future pick swaps and Chris Paul's contract.

Why couldn't the Wizards get more? Because Beal and his contract were not as valuable as the other players you are referencing...in addition to the Wizards not being willing to take on a contract like Simmons, who has a much worse contract than Beal, to get extra assets.

I'm not sure if you are knowingly doing this, but at this point I'll assume you aren't interested in actually having a discussion. You are changing the debate from whether or not it hurt the Wizards to how much of a positive return the Wizards got.

To me, that sort of ends the debate. Once we are debating why the Wizards didn't get more...my side has won....because the very fact that he was traded with ease and for positive value destroys the narrative that he couldn't be traded (yes, I realize you didn't say this explicitly) or that his contract was just stupid and would hurt the Wizards (you did say this)...

So you now arguing about why they didn't get as much as Siakam or lamenting that they should have tanked earlier...to me, are not relevant to our debate. Again, I was in favor of trading Beal likely before you and Wizards fans ever thought of it.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14907226]I guess no contrast is untradeable but there’s a certain point where it looks like such a negative asset you have to attach a 1st to get rid of it. Beal got positive value from suns but at same time lotta people thought phx made a stupid overpay. I was in between thought it was overpay but ok with it since they needed an upgrade from Paul and no other “star” was attainable.

For now those people down on Beal trade were right imo. He looks untradeable rn and phx big 3 doesn’t work. That can change with a bounce back year but hard imagining Beal plays as well as someone like gobert on this suns team.[/QUOTE]

For where the Suns were...it is really hard to call it an overpay imo.

You could call the trade stupid in that they shouldn't have traded for Beal...and that, imo, is perfectly reasonable...but to call it an overpay considering what little they gave up for a team with like a 3 year window max...I don't know, they just didn't pay much that matters to them.

Like I said above, whether or not they should have traded for Beal is a whole different story.

And just to clarify...our debate was never about the Suns trade. It was about whether or not Beal's contract would hurt the Wizards and with some...whether or not he could even be traded without attaching assets...and I think it is simply objective...that the other side was wrong about that.

But that other side might be right about Beal's on court value, especially for a team like the Suns...but that was never the debate.

Nobody, to my knowledge...ever argued Beal was a top 6 player...Blaze seemed the highest on him and I don't even think he was arguing anything beyond borderline all-star level player.

Let's hear what Beal himself had to say:

[QUOTE]
[B]“So, my initial favorite was Miami," [/B]Beal said in an interview with Andscape. "And so, we call Miami. [Miami president] Pat [Riley] says well I’ll go talk to [owner] Micky [Arison] and figure it out. So he goes, talks to Micky, we go, we hear back [New York] Knicks, Sacramento, Brooklyn a little bit, and then it was Milwaukee and it was one more big team … And that was kind of one of the most difficult things about every trade and every team. And I respect and love every team, [B]but a lot of them just couldn’t do it because the money was just so high." [/B]
Beal said he landed with Suns even though they were a darkhorse candidate.
I’m like, ‘OK, what’s Miami doing? Dragging feet.’ And eventually it came to a point to where [B]Miami said they just can’t do it," [/B]Beal said. "But it was an eye-opener for sure. And that’s why I said I went into everything kind of open-minded and with an open slate. [B]And out of nowhere here comes a dark horse in Phoenix and their aggressiveness pushed me over the top.”[/B]

[/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.si.com/nba/heat/miami-news/phoenix-suns-bradley-beal-says-the-miami-heat-were-his-preferred-trade-destination[/url]


So other teams passed because of the contract and then here comes this crazy new owner who doesn't understand the NBA. That same guy was just quoted as saying that 26 other teams would happily trade places with the Suns.

:roll:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907236]For where the Suns were...it is really hard to call it an overpay imo.

You could call the trade stupid in that they shouldn't have traded for Beal...and that, imo, is perfectly reasonable...but to call it an overpay considering what little they gave up for a team with like a 3 year window max...I don't know, they just didn't pay much that matters to them.

Like I said above, whether or not they should have traded for Beal is a whole different story.

And just to clarify...our debate was never about the Suns trade. It was about whether or not Beal's contract would hurt the Wizards and with some...whether or not he could even be traded without attaching assets...and I think it is simply objective...that the other side was wrong about that.

But that other side might be right about Beal's on court value, especially for a team like the Suns...but that was never the debate.

Nobody, to my knowledge...ever argued Beal was a top 6 player...Blaze seemed the highest on him and I don't even think he was arguing anything beyond borderline all-star level player.[/QUOTE]

It was an overpay imo. Bunch of role guys went for a few 2nds at the deadline. Suns could’ve gotten 2 starter lvl role guys for the package they gave up for Beal imo. Those role guys might be a bit overpaid but not as much as Beal was so hence they overpaid for Beal. Teams had interest in Beal but we don’t know what they offered and one teams offer doesn’t determine the market. Gobert was considered a bit of an iffy asset on his contract and look wat he fetched no one else was going offer close to that.

I remember being on the other side too arguing with you. My answer was I prefer cap space for the wizards. Maybe it’s irrelevant to argument too but they wasted a year for mediocrity in a very strong draft class. I do know for sure there were deals to be had to absorb bad contracts into cap space and you would get a 1st too. Davis bertans richaun Holmes etc. Now even with suns overpay, wizards are stuck with 1 1st those 2nds and swaps and Poole. I think I saw you say in this thread you can move poole for a worse contract and assets I heavily disagree. It can change by next year(just like how Beal went from a negative contract to one of the worst in the league) but last offseason and now Poole is one of the worst contracts in league there’s no obvious worse contract to trade for.

And finally the supermax is meant for all-nba players at very least. Some don’t get the full supermax even like gobert. paying a borderline all star a supermax is just gonna be more of a negative asset than a role player making 25% more than he should. Terry rozier went for Lowry and a low value 1st, yea you could’ve gotten him+miles bridges for the cp3 package to give one alternative

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907238]Let's hear what Beal himself had to say:



[url]https://www.si.com/nba/heat/miami-news/phoenix-suns-bradley-beal-says-the-miami-heat-were-his-preferred-trade-destination[/url]


So other teams passed because of the contract and then here comes this crazy new owner who doesn't understand the NBA. That same guy was just quoted as saying that 26 other teams would happily trade places with the Suns.

:roll:[/QUOTE]

That dude is not going to give in.

You could explain it had to be a perfect storm of events until you are blue in the face and he is going to act like he was correct because Beal was traded so he was not [I]literally[/I] untradeable. He only comes here to stubbornly argue until the other person gives up from fatigue and he can pat himself on the back for being "correct"

[QUOTE=Charlie Sheen;14907256]That dude is not going to give in.

You could explain it had to be a perfect storm of events until you are blue in the face and he is going to act like he was correct because Beal was traded so he was not [I]literally[/I] untradeable. He only comes here to stubbornly argue until the other person gives up from fatigue and he can pat himself on the back for being "correct"[/QUOTE]

Yeah Beal was "easily" tradable because some new owner came in and had no clue what he was doing. Cool story bro.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907259]Yeah Beal was "easily" tradable because some new owner came in and had no clue what he was doing. Cool story bro.[/QUOTE]

Yea tbf can still be tradable but doesn’t mean positive value. Miami didn’t even want to include a 1st with Lowry+drob(2 marginally negative contracts).

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907238]Let's hear what Beal himself had to say:



[url]https://www.si.com/nba/heat/miami-news/phoenix-suns-bradley-beal-says-the-miami-heat-were-his-preferred-trade-destination[/url]


So other teams passed because of the contract and then here comes this crazy new owner who doesn't understand the NBA. That same guy was just quoted as saying that 26 other teams would happily trade places with the Suns.

:roll:[/QUOTE]

Yes, his quote literally proves that other teams were interested.

You asked for me to list the other teams that were interested....and I listed them...then you quote Beal saying exactly what I said....and think it somehow works in your favor?

Again, you aren't interested in reality. He was traded within a few days / weeks of becoming available...multiple teams showed interest, and he got positive value for the Wizards.

Sorry...

[QUOTE=Charlie Sheen;14907256]That dude is not going to give in.

You could explain it had to be a perfect storm of events until you are blue in the face and he is going to act like he was correct because Beal was traded so he was not [I]literally[/I] untradeable. He only comes here to stubbornly argue until the other person gives up from fatigue and he can pat himself on the back for being "correct"[/QUOTE]

This is what losers and people that were wrong do. They say things like "I would have been right if only this team didn't do this...or I would have won if this thing didn't happen"...

It's almost like there is always an owner / team willing to take on an all-star level player around 30 years old in a win-now situation....

But, you are right....that never happens....it was a "perfect storm"

Jesus you people are ignorant as shit.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907362]Yes, his quote literally proves that other teams were interested.

You asked for me to list the other teams that were interested....and I listed them...then you quote Beal saying exactly what I said....and think it somehow works in your favor?

Again, you aren't interested in reality. He was traded within a few days / weeks of becoming available...multiple teams showed interest, and he got positive value for the Wizards.

Sorry...[/QUOTE]


:roll:

The reality is that all those teams declined because of his contract. Those we literally his words .

Multiple teams doing their due diligence looking into it, and declining due to his contract, shows the blatant stupidity of your position.

Sorry

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14907249]It was an overpay imo. Bunch of role guys went for a few 2nds at the deadline. Suns could’ve gotten 2 starter lvl role guys for the package they gave up for Beal imo. Those role guys might be a bit overpaid but not as much as Beal was so hence they overpaid for Beal. Teams had interest in Beal but we don’t know what they offered and one teams offer doesn’t determine the market. Gobert was considered a bit of an iffy asset on his contract and look wat he fetched no one else was going offer close to that.

I remember being on the other side too arguing with you. My answer was I prefer cap space for the wizards. Maybe it’s irrelevant to argument too but they wasted a year for mediocrity in a very strong draft class. I do know for sure there were deals to be had to absorb bad contracts into cap space and you would get a 1st too. Davis bertans richaun Holmes etc. Now even with suns overpay, wizards are stuck with 1 1st those 2nds and swaps and Poole. I think I saw you say in this thread you can move poole for a worse contract and assets I heavily disagree. It can change by next year(just like how Beal went from a negative contract to one of the worst in the league) but last offseason and now Poole is one of the worst contracts in league there’s no obvious worse contract to trade for.

And finally the supermax is meant for all-nba players at very least. Some don’t get the full supermax even like gobert. paying a borderline all star a supermax is just gonna be more of a negative asset than a role player making 25% more than he should. Terry rozier went for Lowry and a low value 1st, yea you could’ve gotten him+miles bridges for the cp3 package to give one alternative[/QUOTE]

Yea, I never said it was stupid to let him walk and tank. I just thought it was slightly better to sign him and move him. I would have wanted to take on Simmons from the Nets. I think the Wizards messed up not taking back a contract as bad as Simmons to get more

We disagree on the overpay because it was so marginal, but I understand your argument about the Suns being better off doing something else. I likely agree depending on the specifics.

The supermax is meant for players that qualify for it. The players negotiated it that way. I never even argued Beal was worth that, because he obviously isn't....but we all just need to make peace with this big contracts because they aren't stopping. The players fought for that and they aren't going to be cool with guys that qualify for something not getting at least 90% of their personal max in most situations.

Agree or disagree...doesn't matter...it is what it is.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907364]:roll:

The reality is that all those teams declined because of his contract. Those we literally his words .

Multiple teams doing their due diligence looking into it, and declining due to his contract, shows the blatant stupidity of your position.

Sorry[/QUOTE]

They declined, but were interested.

Do you think a team being "interested" mandates that they make the trade? Do you not know what words mean?

He was traded for positive value....you can't admit it...so you need to pretend a NBA team / owner taking a risk in a win-now situation is some rare event because you can't admit to being wrong on an anonymous message board.

Think about that for a second you clown....:roll::roll::roll:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907366]They declined, but were interested.

Do you think a team being "interested" mandates that they make the trade? Do you not know what words mean?

He was traded for positive value....you can't admit it...so you need to pretend a NBA team / owner taking a risk in a win-now situation is some rare event because you can't admit to being wrong on an anonymous message board.

Think about that for a second you clown....:roll::roll::roll:[/QUOTE]

Interested and actually making an offer aren't the same thing. A team is just doing it's due diligence if Beal is willing to go there

If they decline due to his contract then that just shows that his contract is tough to trade.

Sorry if you can't accept this, or are too dumb to comprehend it.

Traded for positive value or basically for free? Which is it?

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907367]Interested and actually making an offer aren't the same thing. A team is just doing it's due diligence if Beal is willing to go there

If they decline due to his contract then that just shows that his contract is tough to trade.

Sorry if you can't accept this, or are too dumb to comprehend it.

Traded for positive value or basically for free? Which is it?[/QUOTE]

I said interested. So you agree they were interested.

Already explained my position about low cost for the Suns and positive value for the Wizards. These are just facts...I'm not even arguing they got some great package. I don't even care if you call in neutral, even though we both know it wasn't, it wasn't negative value and the Wizards got something for trading Beal. I don't know what there is here to even debate. Just facts.

What floors me, but I guess it shouldn't....is that you and your camp are acting like if the Suns didn't exist...Beal just couldn't have been traded. Things evolve...maybe everyone refuses and then get more desperate at the deadline.

Did you watch Tobias Harris last game? You think the Sixers wouldn't be interested in a swap of Beal for Harris and some future assets if he was still on the Wizards? You think the Nets just hang up the phone if the Wizards call about Simmons?

I mean, I just can't believe fans diehard enough to be on message boards are capable of such blind spots. It is pretty remarkable.

When you say "tough to trade"...I think I agree with you in the sense you are using it, but I think that is the wrong phrase. Tough to trade, imo, is when you have to attach assets to get rid of a player that has true negative value. Perhaps now Beal falls into that category after this year, but he didn't when we were discussing this.

Simmons has a contract tough to trade. Wiggins, when on Minny, had a contract tough to trade...the Wolves had to give up the 7th pick to get rid of him for DLO...when a player gets moved within days / weeks of coming available and for positive value...I just don't consider that tough to trade....because it is nowhere near as hard as truly tough to trade players that have been on much worse contracts.

If teams are interested in Beal as a player, but decline due to his contract, do you really think that helps your case?

:roll:

Of course teams would be interested in him as a player. If he was making $20 million per year I have no doubt that a bunch of teams would make offers.

If nobody was interested in him as a player then his contract wouldn't matter.

Simmons and Wiggins weren't making the vet supermax with a no trade clause.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907370]If teams are interested in Beal as a player, but decline due to his contract, do you really think that helps your case?

:roll:

Of course teams would be interested in him as a player. If he was making $20 million per year I have no doubt that a bunch of teams would make offers.

If nobody was interested in him as a player then his contract wouldn't matter.

Simmons and Wiggins weren't making the vet supermax with a no trade clause.[/QUOTE]

Of course it helps my case. I said multiple teams were interested...then you responded asking me to list the teams...and I did....now you are saying, "fine, they were interested"...but they didn't ultimately make a trade for him. I honestly don't understand your point...I never argued every team would love to trade for Beal on his contract. I truly don't understand your point.

Again, you can't act as if nobody else would have ultimately traded for Beal if he didn't go to the Suns. You simply can't do that...all we know is that as soon as he became available, multiple teams were interested and he was traded rather quickly for positive value. The rest is just conjecture....but we also know that in the NBA teams consistently make desperate moves. It's like you can't wrap your brain around this fact. If I thought all teams would be perfect EV solvers...I wouldn't have argued my side...I would have been more on yours...but it is like you are ignoring or just maybe not realizing that there is always at least one team...usually more...that feel the need to make a move in a win now situation and deals we call "weird" get done all the time.

The Gobert trade of recent infamy comes to mind. I actually liked it for the Wolves at the time, well, I didn't think it was dumb. Why did the Wolves do that? Because they felt they needed exactly what Gobert provides and felt like they could contend for titles with him...this isn't GTO poker dude....this is messy and teams do things like this all the time. That isn't the odd thing...the odd thing is you and your camp pretending that this shit doesn't happen on repeat.

Lastly, Simmons and Wiggins have and had much tougher to trade contracts than Beal did at the time he was traded. Doesn't matter what label you put on them. These are simple facts. Again, not sure what point you are making.

I agree that you don't understand. Teams being interested in Beal, but declining to make an offer due to his contract, just shows how bad the contract is.

That is basic common sense which you clearly lack

I don't need to "act" like another team wouldn't have traded for Beal. He said so himself.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907373]I agree that you don't understand. Being interested in Beal, but declining to make an offer due to his contract, just shows how bad the contract is.

That is basic common sense which you clearly lack[/QUOTE]

More shifting...but good thing we have that thing called reality that shows that Beal was traded for positive value.

You can call his contract whatever you want...end of the day...Wizards got a return for Beal.

Now, Beal after this season....I'd be more in line with you on what value Beal has....but that wasn't the debate.

Sorry.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907374]More shifting...but good thing we have that thing called reality that shows that Beal was traded for positive value.

You can call his contract whatever you want...end of the day...Wizards got a return for Beal.

Now, Beal after this season....I'd be more in line with you on what value Beal has....but that wasn't the debate.

Sorry.[/QUOTE]


Technically getting a second round pick is positive value. So what?

Just because there was one team willing to take on that contract, a new owner who was clueless, doesn't make his contract easy to trade. That is just nonsense.

Teams with experience were interested in Beal as a player but declined to make an offer. If his contract was easy to trade we would have gotten multiple offers, hence his contract wasn't easy to trade.

Sorry

[QUOTE=tontoz;14907375]Technically getting a second round pick is positive value. So what?

Just because there was one team willing to take on that contract, a new owner who was clueless, doesn't make his contract easy to trade. That is just nonsense.

Teams with experience were interested in Beal as a player but declined to make an offer. If his contract was easy to trade we would have gotten multiple offers, hence his contract wasn't easy to trade.

Sorry[/QUOTE]

Well, we don't know if they got multiple offers. Windhorst reported that Miami actually did make an offer around Lowry and a future first....but again, this is more shifting. I never said it was a great contract or that it would be easy to trade in the sense you are talking about. Never did I imply that all teams would be lining up to trade for Bradley Beal.

My point was quite simple...signing Beal to that contract was not the disaster you and your camp made it out to be for the Wizards because if they decided to tank, they could get positive value for the contract...especially if they had been willing to take on truly terrible contracts like the Simmons contract.

I truly don't know or understand how you and others, after watching what played out, could come on here and act like exactly what Blaze and I said didn't basically happen.

It's both hilarious and a little depressing.

You can have the last word...:cheers:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907384]Well, we don't know if they got multiple offers. Windhorst reported that Miami actually did make an offer around Lowry and a future first....but again, this is more shifting. I never said it was a great contract or that it would be easy to trade in the sense you are talking about. Never did I imply that all teams would be lining up to trade for Bradley Beal.

My point was quite simple...signing Beal to that contract was not the disaster you and your camp made it out to be for the Wizards because if they decided to tank, they could get positive value for the contract...especially if they had been willing to take on truly terrible contracts like the Simmons contract.

I truly don't know or understand how you and others, after watching what played out, could come on here and act like exactly what Blaze and I said didn't basically happen.

It's both hilarious and a little depressing.

You can have the last word...:cheers:[/QUOTE]

You actually did say he was traded easily, just like you said he was traded basically for free. Seems like you can't keep your story straight.

Beal said very clearly that other teams refused because the money was too high. He didn't say anything about the wizards asking price being too high.

What is hilarious is how you keep changing your story to for whatever point you are trying to make at that time.

In your narrative another year on the treadmill to nowhere and missing out on the top picks of a strong draft aren't costs of the Beal signing. In reality they are. I have no doubt wizards fans would give up the pick swaps and Bilal for Brandon Miller or one of the Thompson twins, not to mention Wemby.

Multiple teams being interested in Beal but declining because of his contract, according to Beal himself, is clear evidence of just how bad the contract is.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41;14907365]Yea, I never said it was stupid to let him walk and tank. I just thought it was slightly better to sign him and move him. I would have wanted to take on Simmons from the Nets. I think the Wizards messed up not taking back a contract as bad as Simmons to get more

We disagree on the overpay because it was so marginal, but I understand your argument about the Suns being better off doing something else. I likely agree depending on the specifics.

The supermax is meant for players that qualify for it. The players negotiated it that way. I never even argued Beal was worth that, because he obviously isn't....but we all just need to make peace with this big contracts because they aren't stopping. The players fought for that and they aren't going to be cool with guys that qualify for something not getting at least 90% of their personal max in most situations.

Agree or disagree...doesn't matter...it is what it is.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say you said it was stupid. I disagree with you about it being slightly better to sign him and move him. I think it was clearly a bad decision and laid out why alternative was better with actual options they could’ve done like Holmes and bertans. how do you know Simmons was ever an option for nets. They’re going big game hunting according to every report beal isn’t good enough for that.

I’m fine with big contracts but the overpay was not marginal. I don’t think it’s an unpopular opinion that a lot of guys are overpaid on a supermax. A borderline all-nba guy like a towns or gobert don’t deserve a supermax(why gobert got a discount). Possibly even a star like Booker/Mitchell isn’t worth one because only a top 10 superstar should get one. Beal was 1 tier below a borderline all-nba guy and 2 tiers below Booker/Mitchell. He had one great year with wb in his career and that’s it and got him the supermax. The year he got the supermax he wasn’t even an all star. He’s by far the worst player to ever get the supermax and no the players union wouldn’t have complained if he got even 2/3 of what he actually got(4yrs 140 around the 25% rookie max wat upcoming guys like herro/Poole and good vets like jrue were getting). People were calling him worst contract in league pre suns trade.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14907470]

I’m fine with big contracts but the overpay was not marginal. I don’t think it’s an unpopular opinion that a lot of guys are overpaid on a supermax. [/QUOTE]


the idea that wealth can be accumulated over night is baffling.